The other day I paid a visit to our friends at Times and Seasons, and I noticed that on their sidebar, Adam G. had linked toÂ a story he called Renewable Nature Wreckers.Â Â I found the link unfortunate for two reasons:Â 1) the article was yetÂ anotherÂ laughable attempt to debunk the feasibility of renewable energy by using false dilemmas that don’t account for siting or the pace of innovation, and 2) it always saddens me to see otherwise smart people who I respectÂ supportingÂ this kind ofÂ commentary.Â In May 2006, the issue of nuclear energy made headlines in Utah as a firm called Private Fuel Storage was seeking to create a site for the storage of nuclear waste in Tooele County, Utah.Â The Church took the rare step of weighing in on this issue, and the First Presidency’sÂ statement is found here:

Â â€œThe transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns.
Â â€œIt is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste.
Â â€œWe ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.â€

Those three phrases begÂ corresponding questions:

1) What business does the 1st Presidency have commenting on the validity of concerns over the safety of nuclear waste?
2) Why not?Â Why not let the free market decide where waste is disposed of?Â Why take a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) position?Â The waste has to go somewhere, right?
3) Why should the Federal Government take any role whatsoever in influencing the way the free market operates in energy issues?

I ask those questions rhetorically, since I am 100% in agreement with the First Presidency’s position and I believe the “free market” is more or lessÂ a false god that does not really exist except in sexyÂ theoretical models that have limited usefulness in the real world.Â I also believe that the First Presidency has every right to comment on energy issues because the way we treat the earth is an issue that is moralÂ in nature.

I think a lot of members of the Church have their pet issues that we wish the Church would address differently or just more fully, and stewardship of the earth is one such issue for me, which is why I was thrilled to see the First Presidency issue that statement on nuclear power.Â I have often wondered how a lot of our leadershipÂ feel aboutÂ environmental issues, andÂ I have said before that I love surprises, so here are some quotes from ultra-conservative Ezra Taft Benson:

A common problem is a concern for our environment. It is not likely that someone who does not love his neighbor will be concerned with his adverse impact on theÂ environment. To love one’s neighbor is a spiritual law. Just as physical laws are interrelated, so are spiritual laws. One dimension of spiritual law is that a man’s self-regard and his esteem for his fellowmen are intertwined.

If there is disregard for oneself, there will be disregard for one’s neighbor. If there is no reverence for life itself, there is apt to be little reverence for the resources God has given man. The outward expressions of irreverence for life and for fellowmen often take the form of heedless pollution of both air and water. But are these not expressions of the inner man?

Whatever mortal reasons there are to be concerned about environment, there are eternal reasons, too, for us to be thoughtful stewards. President Brigham Young said: “Not one particle of all that comprises this vast creation of God is our own. Everything we have has been bestowed upon us for our action, to see what we would do with itâ€”whether we would use it for eternal life and exaltation, or for eternal death and degradation.”

We are concerned about scarred landscapes that cause floods and leave an economic emptiness that haunts the coming generations. Similarly, unchastity leaves terrible scars, brings floods of tears and anguish, and leaves a moral emptiness. Significantly, both imprudent strip mining and unchastity rest on a life-style that partakes of an “eat, drink, and be merry” philosophy-gouge and grab now without regard to the consequences. Both negligent strip mining and unchastity violate the spirit of stewardship over our planet and person.

Thanks Dan – I am a proponent of nuclear power – essentially cheap, abundant and non-polluting as long as the waste is contained. Of course, it does not fit with the typical oil & gas Republican view nor the Democratic save the Earth view, although I don’t see why Democrats don’t embrace it given the alternatives (more polluting oil and gas)…

which is why I was thrilled to see the First Presidency issue that statement on nuclear power.

The First Presidency’s message wasn’t about nuclear power, but nuclear waste. I get the impression from the message that the First Presidency at least has no comment on whether or not to use nuclear energy, but that we should all bear the burden of nuclear waste and not one particular area: “We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.”

Frankly, I’d love to find ways for us to throw nuclear waste right at the sun. Let the sun incinerate our garbage.

I donâ€™t see why Democrats donâ€™t embrace it given the alternatives (more polluting oil and gas)â€¦

I’ve heard of a lot of liberals, especialy environmentally friendly ones who are regretting the overreaction to Three Mile Island and the nuclear meltdown scare.

At this point, I think this is our best source of energy. In my old ward in Pennsylvania, we had a member who worked at the local power plant, a nuclear power plant, and he told me that all of the nuclear power plants in the United States are running at 100% capacity all the time.

A meltdown could be disturbing mfranti that is for sure, although the benefits to me far outweigh the risks of having massive Global Warming continue, not to mention the reliance on oil from volatile countries…

The likelihood of a meltdown is extremely low. Consider what I said. ALL nuclear power plants in the United States run at 100% capacity and probably have been running like this for decades. In all that time we’ve had only one incident, the Three Mile Island incident. Nuclear power is actually fairly stable if you know what you are doing. And here in America, we’re at a point where I think we have a very good understanding of how nuclear fusion and fission work.

I’m a huge nuclear energy proponent. All energy has risks. With oil there are oil spills. With coal, there is black lung. With gas, there are explosions. As I understand it, all of these individually kill more people in the US each year than the total number of all nuclear-energy related deaths in the US.

Besides, if the priesthood governs the behavior of every particle in the universe, and if harnessing nuclear energy involves harnessing the energy of the universe’s foundational particles, then nuclear energy is also priesthood energy. Thus, the waste created by nuclear energy is not just nuclear waste — it’s priesthood waste. I oppose storing priesthood waste in Zion. The place for priesthood waste is Canada.

There are two forms of nuclear power. One is energy and the other is weaponized. You cannot go from one to the other. So if a country like Iran wants nuclear energy, hey, by all means, let us give them the technology to power their country with nuclear energy. If you study Iran enough, you’ll know that they really are in a shortage of energy, and their pursuit of nuclear technology really is about powering their nation.

mfranti – good points on the waste and no offense taken, this is probably the first area where we have not agreed completely. In my somewhat muddled mind it is just the tradeoff for the guaranteed pollution of fossil fuels and econonic insecurity vs the possible contamination of nuclear and more economic security, although the nuclear waste is an issue. Perhaps we take over a country in the Middle East and bury the waste there – wait we are sort of doing that…

My true preference would be to figure out a way to get wind/wave/solar to work on a widespread and inexpensive basis, but this may not happen for awhile, so in the interim, I would take nuclear over fossil. Of course, I am not an expert in any of this and my opinion, therefore, means very little.

I think the real reason you got a high-level statement from the First Presidency was because a lot of our General Authorities come from families of “down-winders.”

Back when the Manhattan Project was in full swing, nuclear detonations were conducted in the Nevada Desert. Since a particularly influential Senator happened to represent Nevada, it was deliberately decided to conduct tests only when the wind was blowing toward Utah. People were actually encouraged by government officials to sit out and watch the detonation. They were also given “radiation badges” beforehand that could then be collected later for testing. Live human experimentation.

At one point, St. George boasted a 30% cancer rate.

Essentially, the US Government deliberately nuked Southern Utah. Just one more addition to the Mormon book of grudges. I think these wrongs are alive and well in the memory of at least several of our General Authorities.

Also realize this isn’t the first time we’ve had a First Presidency statement on nuclear issues.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan wanted to dig up almost the entire “West Desert” to install thousands of miles of underground rail lines, bunkers, and nuclear silos. The idea was to install the new MX Missiles and play a hide and seek game with Soviet intelligence and spy satellites by constantly shuttling MX Missiles from one bunker to another via underground rail lines. It was going to be the biggest public works project in American history. Contractors were rearing to go, the project had powerful backers.

But then Democratic Governor Orton, was not too happy with the idea and deliberately informed the local press about the planned project. There was a bit of a media firestorm, complete with protests. I believe a referendum was scheduled.

Then, to everyone’s surprise, the First Presidency itself issued a statement condemning the project and encouraging Utahns to vote against it. Apparently President Benson and company took a dim view of the US government painting a nuclear bullseye next to Temple Square. The voter response was overwhelming and the project was effectively killed.

I think there is a real sense among Mormon leadership that our government has, frankly, crapped on us enough.

Webster’s New World defines fusion as “melting together.” Therefore, nuclear fusion is the process by which more than one nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. Nuclear fusion is the process that powers our sun and the stars. Nuclear fission is the exact opposite process, in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei.

As of today, fission is what produces the energy in nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel energy sources like coal and gasoline, which produce tremendous air pollution that evidence suggests is depleting the earth’s ozone layer, nuclear energy produces no air pollution. But the waste products of nuclear fission are highly radioactive and remain so for hundreds of years. At this time, a world-wide research program is underway to harness fusion energy to produce electricity, which would also create radioactive waste material but it would decay much more rapidly. The only by-product of nuclear fusion power would be Helium, a harmless gas.

Nuclear weapons use both fusion and fission, depending on the type of bomb. Fission bombs are known as atomic bombs, atom bombs, or A-bombs. In fission weapons, enriched uranium or plutonium is assembled into what’s called a supercritical mass, which starts an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction (the explosion). Fusion bombs (also called hydrogen bombs, H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs) work by detonating a fission bomb adjacent to a fusion fuel, which starts a fusion reaction. Fusion bombs are far more destructive than fission bombs. A one megaton fission bomb would level everything in its path up to about 1.7 miles away from the detonation site. A one megaton fusion bomb is about 80 times stronger than that.

Only six countries â€” United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom, China and India â€” are known to possess fusion bombs. Iran is currently doing research on nuclear fusion, claiming to have joined the race in developing fusion-based electricity. But the United Nations is concerned that Iran is actually developing nuclear weaponry.

This article also provides a brief introduction on the comparisons of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. It seems there are some connections in the technology of the two.

Seth, to properly apportion credit, note that Reagan had been in office three and a half months when the First Presidency issued its May 5 opposition to basing the MX in the Great Basin. Carter had been pushing the MX from the middle of 1979 to the end of his presidency.

Man, I step away from the blog for a few hours and all this happens…
Dan, you’re right that I should have made the distinction between nuclear power and nuclear waste; I assumed that if the Church is not comfortable with current methods of nuclear waste disposal, then it follows that they are not comfortable with nuclear power.

The Church’s statement of political neutrality states that the Church does:

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

So what aspect of nuclear waste disposal has 1) “community consequences” 2) moral consequences, or 3) direct effects on the interests of the Church? It may be simply the idea of transport, but as many have already pointed out, we have not had problems in our nuclear plants since three mile island, so there is a strong precedent of safety in the transport of these materials, as well as their use in generating power.

So is the depositing of extremely hazardous materials into the earth a moral issue? I am inclined to think yes, because it transfers the burden of keeping that waste secure to future generations, and any time we transfer the consequences of our consumption to future generations, that is not a moral choice, because as Pres. Benson implied, it shows a contempt for our fellow man.
I realize that this is a difficult position in a sense, because we all participate in a broader system of waste disposal that in fact transfers the burden of our consumption to future generations who have just as much right to our land as we do.

Seth, what are you talking about when you write that Matheson “deliberately informed the local press about the planned project”? The project wasn’t a secret; the MX was all over the national and local news well before Utah’s governor changed his mind and came out against it.

I think I remember reading in Avner Cohen’s book “Israel and the Bomb,” that David Ben-Gurion knew very well that there was no such thing as two nuclear energies or two nuclear powers. That is, if you have the technology for nuclear power then you basically have the know-how and capability to create nuclear weapons. I haven’t found the quote online and the book is packed away in a box left in Utah. I’ll try to find it somewhere.

mfranti – I guess we agree – it is like the 2004 election – I voted for the lesser of two evils and wrote in Bill Clinton…

Dan- interesting thoughts, but I don’t see how pollution with fossil fuels is any different, we still leave a mess for future generations. At least with nuclear we can contain it as much as is feasible, while fossil fuels will pollute everything.

So is the depositing of extremely hazardous materials into the earth a moral issue? I am inclined to think yes, because it transfers the burden of keeping that waste secure to future generations, and any time we transfer the consequences of our consumption to future generations, that is not a moral choice, because as Pres. Benson implied, it shows a contempt for our fellow man

I agree with Devyn that even fossil fuels leaves an indelible imprint for future generations to deal with. With nuclear waste the environmental risk is just that, a risk, whereas with fossil fuel, it isn’t a risk, it is a reality. It occurs the moment you start burning those coals. We’ve used nuclear energy for the past forty years or so (I’m not sure the exact amount of time, perhaps longer than that). To this point, we have not had (to my knowledge) any environmental damage from nuclear waste. Three Mile Island was a man-made mistake at the power plant, not through the nuclear waste.

By the way, for anyone who might think my comments about David Ben-Gurion and Ernest David Bergmann are out of the blue – I am responding to something written earlier by Dan:

There are two forms of nuclear power. One is energy and the other is weaponized. You cannot go from one to the other.

I basically disagree with what Dan is saying. I’m not a nuclear physicist or scientists by any means, but the Bergmann quote about there not being two atomic energies strikes me as more sensible.

If I remember right – I’d need to re-examine this – Israel gained a bit of it’s nuclear know-how due to Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. I think this Atoms for Peace program had something to do with this idea that the science of nuclear power and the science of nuclear weapons could be segregated from each other. That’s an idea strikes me as a bit nutty.

Here’s an interesting PBS Frontline bit on “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” The most useful part is where it brings up how the French people suprised their government by opposing nuclear waste even though they like nuclear power.

Bataille went and spoke to the people who were protesting and soon realized that the engineers and bureaucrats had greatly misunderstood the psychology of the French people. The technocrats had seen the problem in technical terms. To them, the cheapest and safest solution was to permanently bury the waste underground. But for the rural French says Bataille, “the idea of burying the waste awoke the most profound human myths. In France we bury the dead, we don’t bury nuclear waste…there was an idea of profanation of the soil, desecration of the Earth.”

Bataille discovered that the rural populations had an idea of “Parisians, the consumers of electricity, coming to the countryside, going to the bottom of your garden with a spade, digging a hole and burying nuclear waste, permanently.” Using the word permanently was especially clumsy says Bataille because it left the impression that the authorities were abandoning the waste forever and would never come back to take care of it.

Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a “stocking center” than a “nuclear graveyard”. Was this just a semantic difference? No, says Bataille. Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible.

Devyn, you’re right- fossil fuels are also problematic. Renewables are the imperfect alternative (conservation and efficiency are best), and it’s very irritating to see articles like the one Adam G. linked to getting published. Renewables, done stupidly, can be every bit as problematic as fossil fuels, and much more expensive. Anyone with half a brain would concede that. But nuclear power is very, very expensive, even after receiving the overwhelming majority of subsidies (some estimate 95%) the federal gov’t has doled out to the energy industry. By contrast, the gov’t money poured into solar and wind power in the past two decades have brought down the costs of those technologies to a fraction of what they were in 1980, and accelerated investment in the past few years is bringing down prices even further.
Common sense would indicate that you pour subsidies and research money into areas where it has the effect of bringing prices down, but a lot of people have a gut reaction of contempt for any policy choice that pleases those godless environmentalists…

Dan – I would agree completely – give me cheap renewables anytime. However, there is still a ways to go to make them truly competitive with nonrenewables. Hopefully the gap will close soon. Good point on the nuclear subsidies. I guess it is still the lesser of two evils – if we can’t get renewables, then give me nuclear…

Speaking of France, the French gov’t subsidizes nuclear power enormously, and we do as well; in the U.S. the Price-Anderson act shifts most of the liability for a reactor accident to the federal gov’t (read: taxpayers). Without that gov’t assumption of risk, I doubt if any new reactors would get built.

BP is a fantastic company in this regard; they are spearheading a lot of work in renewables. I don’t fault them or any other companies for being in the oil industry, because oil is our current reality. I do fault Exxon, however, for transitioning PR people from the tobacco lobby to the business of global warming skepticism.
mfranti, among the many things you are right about ;) is the success of the nuclear power lobby. Think about the magnitude of the government’s decision to assume liability for possible nuclear accidents- that’s an unbelievable subsidy to that industry.
The coal industry is subsidized as well- the federal government pays out billions of dollars in benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease.

Common sense would indicate that you pour subsidies and research money into areas where it has the effect of bringing prices down…”

Keep in mind that nuclear already provides a large amount of energy, and renewables essentially none. Research that can improve nuclear production 5% is a greater benefit than research that might double or triple renewable production. A lot of nuclear energy research is nuts-and-bolts stuff such as pipes and pumps where incremental improvement in safety and efficiency is possible, as opposed to casting about for a technological miracle that will bring about a paradise on earth if only evil corporations can be restrained from thwarting it. So, yes, common sense dictates that much more federal research would be devoted to nuclear energy than to renewable sources.

Gov Matheson was having an early stage meeting with various military officials from Washington who were pitching the idea to him. It was Gov Matheson’s habit to allow the press free run of the Capitol building and invite them into his office on a regular basis. According to the two reporters involved, he to advantage of a brief recess in his meeting with the military brass and lobbyists, to mosy into the foyer and grab a couple reporters he knew, and invite them into his office to listen in and take notes during the discussion. The military men weren’t too pleased with it, but I think Matheson was trying to make a point.

The account is in the book “Canaries on the Rim” which covers not only the MX Missile story, but also the nuclear waste issues we’re discussing here, and the problem of the chemical weapons incinerator located in Tooele County. It’s a good book focused on Utah’s own unique environmental problems.

Uranium is in the ground. You concentrate it using a very clean ultracentrufugation technique. You use it. And then you put it pack in the ground.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say

Uranium is in the ground. You take it out of the ground, make it into one of the most dangerous substances on earth, then store it in locations that need to be safeguarded and maintained by future generations, for the next quarter million years

John, your caricature of me is wrong and doesn’t help your argument. Federal research money can certainly help with increased output, but ultimately what makes it viable is the federal government’s subsidies to construction of new plants and its assumption of risk. In France, the government has subsidized it more aggressively with actual financing packages.
Your theoretical “research that can improve nuclear production 5%” is still a terrible waste of money; if those dollars went to subsidize energy efficiency, they would reduce demand by a much greater amount than your theoretical 5% benefit.

After 50+ comments, does anyone want to take a crack at the substance of this post- the merits (or lack thereof) in the Church’s position?

You seem to be making much ado about burdening future generations with the responsibility of managing nuclear waste based on the quote from ETB. Do you apply that same rationale to all of your policy positions (i.e. entitlements)?

You complain that no one has discussed the substance of your post but I think #2 & #24 directly address your post. I tend to agree (a real shocker) with Dan in #2. In my mind the statement by the FP is little more than saying, “Given the known dangers as we understand them, we’d prefer that Utah not carry the full weight of the burden of storing nuclear waste and we ask the federal government to step in to help spread the pain.” I don’t think the church is taking any sort of policy position with regard to energy production.

Dan, I’d also be interested in your definition of sustainability. How do technology and time factor into your definition?

#2 argues the Church is troubled with the “free-market” allocation of nuclear waste to what the market deems is a good disposal area; it’s basically a NIMBY position, nevermind that the market has determined that Utah and Nevada have better “backyards” for this than most places. Does the Church’s point of view have merit?
#24 argues the Church is bitter about the government’s past behavior in nuclear research; do actions on the part of the government decades ago make it okay for the Church to interfere in the affairs of a private firm seeking to create a safe disposal site for nuclear waste? Again, does that position have merit? Why doesn’t the Church narrow the scope of its position to the precise question of this firm’s right to operate a waste disposal site?

I donâ€™t think the church is taking any sort of policy position with regard to energy production.

When you are able to create nuclear energy without nuclear waste, that will be a valid point. Currently, the two are inseparable; if you frown upon nuclear waste disposal, then you frown upon an essential aspect of nuclear power generation.

I personally don’t have a good definition for “sustainable;” that’s why I don’t use that word.

Dan Ellsworth, your point about energy production policy being inseparable from energy waste disposal policy is a good one. I remember the controversy surrounding Geneva Steel in Provo.

What strikes me as odd is that we claim to be a global church but the leadership is still bogged down in questions of policy that are Utah-centric. As a Massachusetts resident, I don’t mind using Utah as a nuclear waste disposal site — I just don’t want the stuff in Massachusetts.

One message I take from this First Presidency statement is that the Great Basin remains a place of special concern to the Church. If Congress hadn’t singled out Yucca Mountain in 1987, but instead Louisiana or Washington state, then it doesn’t seem likely that the First Presidency would have issued this statement.

The Church IS making a NIMBY argument and it has absolutely zero merit because it is based on poor information and overstates the relative risks of having the waste stored in Utah. Ascribing any sort of theological rationale to the FP statement is reading a whole lot more into it than is there. That’s why you had to pull the ETB quote– to try and lay out some sort of theological rationale for your own opposition to nuclear power. As some other commenters have noted, if the storage facility had been proposed in the Missouri Ozarks Church HQ would not have uttered a peep. You’re attempting to turn an NIMBY policy position into a general policy position on energy and, frankly, it doesn’t work.

Are you still standing by your rationale laid out in #30 regarding the immorality of burdening future generations with consumption decisions today? Is that a rationale you only apply to nuclear waste? the environment? anything? Would you be willing to stick by it on entitlements? If not it sounds like a pretty lousy rationale.

I’m not trying to pick a fight. But Dan is attempting to apply a MORMON theological framwork to a specific policy position he holds. Said rationale seems entirely self-serving for the given subject and therefore worthless as a community standard. If he’s willing to stick by that rationale under all circumstances then I invite him to elaborate on his rationale. If you read the quote by ETB Dan cites you’ll notice that it boils down to an economic argument. I’m OK with economic arguments in favor of conservation and preservation but I expect those arguments to be consistent in order to have value.

The FP statement isn’t quite a “not in my back yard” position. It’s “not only in my back yard.” It could be possible to favor nuclear waste disposal and not be especially worried about its health effects, but still have a problem with your area being literally singled out as a wasteland.

What kinds of entitlements are you talking about? Government pensions? Health care? Social Security? Off hand, I imagine my answer will be yes- my position is consistent.
I will gladly concede that I find a lot of theological support for the idea of our being the best possible stewards of the earth; my question is whether the Church is taking its position for theological, moral, or any number of other reasons.

I think Ellsworth is arguing that making and leaving a mess for other people to clean up is immoral– whether that is the environment, the Social Security situation, or anything else. How is that “lousy rationale”? The ETB statements he quotes simply provide a basis for the idea that there might be theological reasons behind the First Presidency’s statement on nuclear waste. Sounds pretty compelling to me.

So do you apply the future burden rationale to building projects in general? Suppose I build a house today and pay cash for it. Am I evil wicked because some future generation is going to have the burden of repairing/maintianing the structure or paying to dispose of it? Mitigating factors are going to persuade you to say, “No.” You’re going to argue that future generations are going to derive some benefit from the structure because it will provide someone with a place to live thus reducing or entirely eliminating the burden. The same sort of argument can be made for nuclear enegery– that securing cheap, clean (relatively) energy today is critical to sustaining long-term growth for the US economy which in turn mitigates any future burden imposed upon future generations. As you see, using such a simple rationale as Dan outlined in #30 is virtually useless as an argument against nuclear power and the ETB quote does absolutely nothing to rescue it.

Dan’s argument also implies a number of unstated assumptions. First, that humanity will never figure out how to dispose of nuclear waste. Two, that the cost of storing/disposing of nuclear waste is fixed or marginally increasing. Third, storing nuclear waste in a single site somehow constrains the available options open to future generations. In short, Dan attempts to posit an economic argument against nuclear power without fully addressing all the economic factors that play into that argument. That’s sloppy reasoning.

Sometimes it’s easier to debate a caricature than a reasonable person, isn’t it?
Your argument seems to be that nuclear power is cheap (very false), so our use of it benefits our economy in a way that ensures a level of prosperity for future generations that compensates for their having to deal with our nuclear waste.
Nuclear energy is still only feasible after enormous subsidies and incentives, and the government’s assumption of risk under Price-Anderson. Parenthetically, why stop with nuclear power? Why not have the government assume risk for all private business endeavors?
If the government were to redirect its subsidies and put them towards energy efficiency — nevermind renewables — the benefit to the nation’s economy would be substantially greater to future generations, as decreased demand would bring down prices much more quickly across the board, and a decrease in demand lessens the risk of energy’s impact on inflation as well. Subsidizing and incentivizing nuclear does not provide the greatest economic benefit to future generations – not even close.
You are correct that I am assuming future generations will not learn to dispose of the waste. If you want to factor in theoretical, imaginary technological advancements, then renewables win that game hands down. Notice, for example, the argument that says it would take X number of wind turbines covering Y amount of land to equal the output of a nuclear plant. Seems reasonable, until you factor in the rate at which older turbines from the 1970s and 80s are being replaced — on the same amount of land — with modern turbines having several times the efficiency and capacity. If you draw that curve of technological advancement and factor in improvements in blade design and siting, wind power beats nuclear quite easily, and the same goes for solar power.

I’m generally a supporter of nuclear power. But it is not primarily about the environment or about whether it’s cheaper.

It’s more about our strategic position in the world. I don’t like our dependence on a dwindling oil supply. It’s a constant risk to our economic (and consequently military) security and world financial stability.

I’d like our sources of energy more diversified, with a heavy emphasis on efficient use. I think nuclear has to be a part of the equation – even if it is a bit of a boogey-man for many.

I also don’t mind a bit of government subsidizing provided it doesn’t encourage bad habits.

I understand; My point is, if you want to argue for nuclear, it needs to be for a reason other than economic, since a redirection of the nuclear subsidy towards efficiency or even renewables would pay significantly more over time. Nuclear power is not economical by any stretch; there has never been a single instance where ownership of a nuclear power plant has changed hands and sold to the new owner for a profit. Even after Price-Anderson, there is a tremendous amount of risk priced into those plants. This is something that cannot be blamed on environmentalists.